WatDabney @ WatDabney @sopuli.xyz

Posts

8

Comments

920

Joined

2 yr. ago

Probably.

Years ago, I was actually opposed to it myself (it was generally considered under the umbrella of Affirmative Action then) mostly because I saw it as a species of tokenism - a way to create the illusion of inclusion and diversity without the spirit of the thing.

But then I was confronted with a very compelling argument that basically held that it should be supported regardless of potential flaws because its long-term merits would oitweigh those flaws - it would condition people to see minorities in the workplace, and even in positions of power, as a common and unremarkable thing, and it would allow for new generations who would grow up already in that world because of their parents 'employment. Effectively, it wasn't for the current generations, for whom it would necessarily be at least somewhat problematic, but for future generations.

That's been my position ever since.

Somewhere along the way though - about the same time that "woke" became a pejorative, I started seeing a new rush of opposition to what was now known as DEI.

And the thing is that I never once saw a considered argument against it. All I saw was the new generation of overt racists - the people who fed exclusively on /pol/ and stormfront and AM talk radio and white supremacist podcasts - sneeringly referring to every minority in any notable position as a "DEI hire."

But yes - maybe those who oppose it sincerely and with good intentions are out there and I just don't see them.

I actually paused over that one myself, but while it is technically possible that someone could oppose DEI with the best of intentions, with the sincere belief that it's an ineffective or even counter-productive strategy, I just think it's orders of magnitude more likely that they oppose it because they're racist filth.

But yeah - that's one that I'd likely want to follow up on before a final decision.

And I'm one of them. There's absolutely no way I would or even could ever date some loathsome piece of shit who opposes trans rights, supports Trump, defends the Capitol attack, opposes DEI, wants abortion banned or wants gender roles legislated.

If anything, I'm disappointed that there aren't more of us.

Any day now he's going to announce that the new tariff on China is eleventy bajillion percent. And no takesies backsies.

It's those roughly squared off, dirty, slushy heaps of packed snow that were plowed out of the way after the snowfall and are the only thing left after the rest of the snow has melted.

stop killing Palestinian babies = antisemitism

∴

semitism = killing Palestinian babies

By design.

And the 1% are going to ride it out in their purpose-built private enclaves, then buy the world at disaster auction prices and make themslves into feudal lords.

The US has a number of institutional failures that need to be addressed if it's to have any hope of surviving and the Trump presidency is not only not going to address them, but has for all intents and purposes taken it as its mandate to specifically focus on exacerbating them.

It's dealing with wealth inequality by increasing it. It's dealing with political corruption by institutionalizing it. It's dealing with fragile and ineffective public health, public education and social service systems by breaking them. It's dealing with rapacious corporations by eliminating constraints on them. It's dealing with climate change by encouraging it. It's dealing with diminished international stature by alienating literally everyone. It's dealing with the threat of economic collapse by destroying international markets. It's dealing with the threat of social unrest by fanning the flames of bigotry and hatred. And on and on.

It's essentially the equivalent of a cancer patient taking up smoking. In a house lined with asbestos and uranium.

And at that point, it really doesn't matter who wants to save them or how much they want it.

I would've likely been better off with a broader term - something like "the wealthy and empowered few" - particularly since the subject at hand concerns the United States, in which the line between private wealth and power and political power grows more vague and hazy day by day.

But yes - ultimately I conclude government, since government is the entity that has established the legal fiction of corporations, that has acted to protect the private wealth by which the political influence to establish things like a predatory health insurance system can exist and has utterly failed to do one of the few things that is a mandate for a government from the start - to protect citizens from harm brought by others and/or to punish those who bring it.

Or to be more precise, if the government had done its job of protecting Americans from a destructive and predatory health insurance system (as opposed to literally mandating it), Luigi's vigilantism likely wouldn't have occurred in the first place, and certainly wouldn't have had so much support if it had.

But since they didn't do their job, it happened, and if they continue to not do their job (as it appears they're determined), then it will happen again, and worse.

Who said anything about "being shitty humans?"

I'm talking about a very specific dynamic - a civilization in which there is widespread citizen discontent and whether the government acts to alleviate that discontent legitimately or merely acts to divert or stifle it.

The former allows for solutions so allows for recovery. The latter leaves the problems to rot and fester, and is a death sentence.

This is the primary reason that I say the United States is terminally ill - that the only possible future is collapse.

When faced with popular discontent, the leaders of a nation have exactly two choices - to attempt to deal with the issues that cause the discontent, or to refuse to deal with the issues and instead just try to squash or distract from the discontent.

A nation that has chosen the latter is living on borrowed time, since the discontent is still there, lurking below the surface, will always be there as long as the cause remains unaddressed, and will, sooner or later, burst into the open again, even more toxic and violent than it was the last time.

Much though the ruling class might wish to believe otherwise there is no third alternative. There's no magic wand they can wave to make the discontent vanish. They can either work to eliminate it by eliminating its cause(s), or they can watch while it weakens and eventually destroys the nation.

And the US has clearly chosen that latter path. In fact, it could broadly be said that that's the exact purpose of the Trump presidency - a concerted and organized effort by elements of the ruling class to establish a government specifically dedicated to refusing to address the causes of discontent and to instead merelybtry to distract from it or squash it.

And it will ultimately fail. It can't do otherwise.

Cabin in the Woods

It Follows

In almost 30 years of posting online, I don't know of any instance in which I've ever gotten anybody to reflect and shift their views on anything.

I presume it's happened a time or two, but I have no knowledge of any specific instance.

Broadly, while I necessarily write in response to other posters, my responses aren't really intended for them - they're intended for the lurkers.

So he's saying he's never going to step down?

I can't see any situation in which I would.

Mostly I have zero interest in sucking any dick (other than maybe my own, and I'm not that flexible).

But beyond that, $20 just seems wrong no matter what - if I wanted to do it, $20 would be pointless and if I didn't, it wouldn't be near enough.

According to a February Quinnipiac poll, about half disapprove of how Democrats in Congress are handling their job, compared with about 4 in 10 who approve.

How can even 4 in 10 approve? What is there to approve of?

There is no "doing their jobs well" or "doing their jobs poorly " - most of the Democrats in Congress aren't doing their jobs at all.

1. It doesn't "expose" anything really, since that implies that it was formerly hidden and it very much wasn't. Trump and his co-conspirators and mercenaries have been very clear that their position is that the rules only apply to other people literally since day one.
2. Legal concepts are only relevant if they're enforced - if they're not, then they're just meaningless mouth noises that might as well not exist at all. So the real problem isn't that Trump et al consider themselves above the law, but that damned near NOBODY in the entire fucking government is doing one single thing to disabuse them of that notion.

We need a phrase even more pointed than "the pot calling the kettle black" for things like this.

Nobody's as bad as he is, but she's certainly an awful human.

But that's not really relevant. It's just that from what I've seen, she tries to stay as far away from him as possible - preferably in another state. So I assume being given an excuse to be in a different coutry would be okay by her.

I get the impression that Melania would be fine with that - that she'd take any excuse to be as far as possible away from that stinky lump of congealed fat and bronzer.